Electoral Systems and Stability in Divided Societies

Severely divided countries pose a particular problem when it comes to securing democratic stability. Such countries are characterised by deep cleavages representing ‘sociocultural and ascriptive traits, such as race, ethnicity, language, religion or region’ (Bogaards, 2003, p. 59). Other forms of social division, which focus on wider issues, do not diffuse the strength of these cleavages, making them particularly entrenched. Democracy is ‘about access to power’, determining who gets power and what benefits this entails (Horowitz, 1993, p. 18). The problem in a divided society is that access to power is often determined by ethnic identity, with politicians ‘playing the race card at election time’ to mobilise the votes of their own group (Reilly, 2002, p. 156). This often leads to significant groups being marginalised and permanently denied access to power, as voting patterns are predetermined by group identity. Furthermore, political appeals to one’s own group leads to the demise of moderate politics, with the ‘centrifugal’ and escalating force of group appeals leading to the political centre being ‘pulled apart’ (p. ibid).

Democracy in a divided society can thus lead to a lack of both inclusion of all groups in the political process and a lack of moderation from politicians of all groups (Wolff, 2005, p. 62). Political inclusion is necessary to stability as one group will not accept permanent rule by another, given how deep these divisions are and the animosity that is often felt between groups (Horowitz, 1993, p. 19). Instability will often be the result of this as marginalised groups will resort to violence in an attempt to gain power, having lost faith in the democratic process. However inclusion alone is not sufficient, for inclusive governance ‘can only run smoothly if there is a significant degree of moderation’ from those involved so that political discourse can move away from the divisive issue of group identity (Wolff, 2005, p. 62).

This essay will argue that an appropriate electoral system is necessary for stability in a divided country. Since it determines the circumstances in which political power is achieved, an electoral system can facilitate inclusion of the divided groups in society and can ‘reward certain kinds of policies and strategies and punish others’ to promote moderation (Lal, 1997, p. 39). However, this is not sufficient. An electoral system’s success is limited by the idiosyncrasies of each country, such as the number of divided groups, their geographical concentration and most significantly the level of the polarisation.

The Power of Electoral Systems

Electoral systems are the ‘most powerful lever of political engineering for conflict resolution’ (Horowitz, 1997, p. 22). This is because it determines how votes translate into seats in the legislature (Reilly, 2007, p. 60) and thereby determining many aspects of the functioning of democracy: what the parties look like, who is represented and by whom, and ‘ultimately who governs’ (Reynolds, 1999, p. 89). Therefore the electoral system is the gateway to power in a democracy. It can be manipulated to ‘foster accommodative behaviour’ by ensuring that groups are included in the political process by ‘decreasing the incidence of zero-sum outcomes (Reilly, 1997a, p. 60). Furthermore by changing the incentives available to those seeking election, electoral rules ‘can make some types of behaviour more politically rewarding than others, making it possible to incentivise inclusiveness and moderation (Reilly, 2002, p. 156). Thus, the electoral system is foundational to the political culture in a society; it determines from the beginning on which lines an election will be run. It is absolutely necessary for it to foster both inclusiveness and moderation so that stability can follow. While getting this right is only one part of the quest for stability, getting it wrong can make...

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

...ElectoralSystems
There is only one path to democracy and that is an election. It is the only way that a government can represent the will of the people. It gives legitimacy to government and ensures that the freedom one gives up in lieu of security and order is maintained. In a democratic state, the electoral process determines who will hold political office. The importance of a free, fair and representative election cannot be overstated in the 21st century nor can be the process of it undermined. Due to the rapid pace of globalization no one constituency, country or region is isolated from one another. Everything is interdependent on the macro level, be it an economy or an election. Human beings have come a long way in terms of civilization and the growth we have seen can be attributed to a number of factors. However if we narrow our vision one thing that is common to this period of growth and progress is civility and the realization that the only way to success is when one stops worrying about the security of life and starts contributing towards the engines of growth. Who provides that security and ensures prosperity has varied throughout history, and its success has been largely dependent on it as well. The governors of the world have ranged from religion to monarchies not to mention armies and cults but the only time the world has seen sustained progress has been when the people have been in charge. And the only way to put...

...perfect electoralsystem'
The idea of perfection is interpreted differently amongst everybody in the UK. The word 'Perfect' is defined as having all the necessary or typical characteristics required for a given situation. So everybody will have different thoughts on what really is a perfect electoralsystem. Generally, a perfect electoralsystem is one which has the qualities of being simple, gives a varied choice to the electorate, is fair and proportional, gives a clear outcome and is microcosmic, it represents the people more.
Firstly, it could be argued that the more proportional electoralsystems are the closest to a 'perfect' electoralsystem because they show what/who the people of the UK really voted for. One proportional system is the Single Transferrable Vote. This system operates by representatives being elected in large multi-member constituencies, the voting is preferential and also known as 'Voting Ordinal' where the voters can vote as many times as they want. The candidates much receive a quota known as a droop quota to actually become elected and if they reach this quota any excess votes are redistributed on the basis of 2nd preferences. The calculation used to work out the quota is (total valid poll/(seats+1))+1, which some people argue is too complicated for any elections in the UK,...

...The ElectoralSystem
Elections: a device for filling an office through choices made by a designated body of people: the electorate; "very heart of the political process"
A. Material Element: externalities involved in the organization and use of things (speeches, campaigns, the act of going to the election booth, writing the name of the candidate in the ballot)
B. Discursive Element: how the material elements "fit into an existing wider pattern of meaning, symbols and understandings" (material elements can also be considered discursive)
Electoralsystem: the set of rules that govern the conduct of elections
Functions of Elections:
A. "Bottom-Up" or "People Government": elections provide the citizenry with a meaningful way of participating in the government; vertical mechanism channel, from people to gov't
i. Mechanism for leadership selection
ii. An instrument for evaluating and changing governments
iii. A forum for interest articulation and socialization
B. "Top-Down" or "Government People": elections are used by people in the government to legitimize their rule and control over the people
i. An instrument of rule legitimation
ii. A guide to political strategy
iii. An agent of political socialization and integration
Overall, an election is a "structural opportunity" for those in power and those who are not to influence each other
Qualifications and Disqualifications for Suffrage:
A....

...﻿Canadians voters need a fair electoralsystem, which is Proportional Representation.
Elections are one of the most important factors in democracy; one-person one vote. The voting system is the heart of the representative. This system is what citizens use to create democratic government. Thus, if the voting system does not consider what the voters say, government will not be properly accountable and democracy will then be comprised. This is the core problem in the Canadian political system and our electoralsystem does not do justice to the Canadian voters. The system does not represent the people, most votes are wasted because in this current system not every vote counts; Canada’s current voting system is based on the winning-take-all principle. It is a system of winners and losers. Where in each riding, one group of voters get to send a Member of Parliament to Parliament, and the party with most seats is asked by the govern general to form a government. The party with second most seats in the House of Commons becomes the opposition. All the other voters in the riding lose. Thus, if you do not support the most popular party in your riding, your vote is ineffective and wasted. As Elections Canada said, the Single Member Plurality system used in all Canadian federal and provincial elections has...

...The electoralsystems existing in the UK today are currently under scrutiny with a call for reform for the First Past The Post (FPTP) with the recent AV referendum, in which people voted NO against a reform to the current system. However, in this political climate where people accuse the FPTP system of bias, being wasteful and being disproportional, the system for electing Members of the European Parliament, the Closed List System (CLS) has also been under question. In this essay I will explore the faults and benefits of both systems and how they may be reformed.
On one hand, the FPTP system of elections, used to choose members of the Westminster Parliament, has some advantages, firstly as it offers a stable government. As the system favours larger parties, shown by in 2010 the Tories getting only 36% of the votes get 47% of the seats, it is usually the case that a single party forms government, the exception ironically being the most recent election, however this is a rare occasion. This also allows for a stable opposition, as in the UK we have a largely two-party system, with two dominant parties Labour and the Conservatives – therefore if both parties get more seats than they would under a proportional system then a stable government and stable opposition can be achieved.
Secondly, FPTP is a good...

...Plurality ElectoralSystem does not represent a fair and democratic way of electing Canada’s government. In order to exercise a more democratic approach, Canada needs to adopt a proportional representative electoralsystem.
Democracy will never be a goal that is achieved; it is a process that countries are continuously striving to improve. There is a vast gap between what we expect and what the government delivers. In order to come closer to achieving a more democratic country, Canada needs to re-evaluate how they are distributing the number of seats in the House of Commons.
Canada currently operates under a plurality election system, also called, "first-past-the-post" system that means that the candidate with the most votes wins. If Canada represented only two parties then it would be the majority wins but in actuality the ballots are split up amongst three or four major candidates and often half a dozen other hopefuls. This causes disturbances among a democratic society because even the most convincing winners rarely capture more than half the total votes. This also causes unfair representation amongst smaller parties such as the Green party, which currently have one seat in the House of Commons.
The issue with Canadian politics is that we never think things through very far; Canada has always been a little foreign to change. British Columbia, for example,...

...UK have adopted various electoralsystems. However, there are a number of problems with each systems and some systems are more proportional than others, for example the List System has a higher degree of proportional representation than the First Past The Post system which is used in UK general elections. In spite of this, there are good systems in Northern Ireland, like AMS which is very proportional and provides a simple outcome.
The First Past The Post system usually leads to single party governments (apart from the 2010 election where the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats made a coalition government), having a single party government most of the time can lead to one party dominating, this can lead to low participation as people are discouraged that it will always be the big two and having their opinions being acted upon, and the small minority that voted them in would be happy with this, but the other voters (up to 49.9%) wouldn't be happy with it and may start hate campaigns. Another criticism of FPTP is that no Government in any recent general elections have got 50% of the votes that were cast, and this shows that people are becoming more divided, and maybe are voting for minority parties rather than the "big two", for example the results of the general election in 2010 the results were; Labour 40.7%, Conservatives 31.7% and...

...Essay Question Number 4; The Electoralsystems in the Caribbean needs to be changed. How real is this view?
An election as a political process serves as the single most important mechanism for
citizens to participate in the selection of a government. When conducted to international standards, elections tend to confer legitimacy on a government. In the Commonwealth Caribbean, the electoral experience varies and tends to reflect not only the socio-political culture of the member state but also its particular electoralsystem.
The electoralsystem determines the difference between votes and seats; how votes are translated into seats. How many and what kind of votes are needed to get a seat varies from system to system. As a result, different electoralsystems give politicians incentives to organize and campaign in different ways. Some electoralsystems may even create barriers for certain types of candidates. Different electoralsystems give voters different kinds of choices, which can then affect the decisions voters make.
They are three main types of electoralsystems; Plurality-candidates are elected with a plurality (i.e. not a majority) of votes cast. Main models include: Single Member Plurality; Multi-Member Plurality...